What if Israel were to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader?

What if Israel Assassinates Iran's Supreme Leader?

What if Israel Assassinates Iran's Supreme Leader?

Author: Yevgeny Krutikov

Israel has already destroyed a large number of Iran's military and political elites. Will it further attempt to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei? At least Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others have publicly mentioned such plans. How realistic is this threat? And what consequences would follow if it were carried out?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel does not rule out the possibility of attempting to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Previously, CBS quoted an unnamed Israeli intelligence official as suggesting that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should "change bedrooms every night" because Israel's intelligence agency might launch an assassination attempt. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also threatened that Khamenei would meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to target Iran's military and political figures. The Israeli Defense Forces stated that after obtaining intelligence, fighter jets attacked a command center in central Tehran, killing Ali Shadman, the head of Iran's Central Air Defense Command. Notably, he was killed again in his apartment in Tehran, indicating that Iran seemed not to have taken special security measures for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' senior leadership.

Interestingly, the claim that Israel might assassinate Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, did not appear as a leak or speculation but was openly mentioned on American television. When asked directly whether assassinating Khamenei would escalate the conflict, Netanyahu responded without hesitation, "On the contrary, it will end the war."

First, is this really the case?

There are currently two opposing assessments of Iran's domestic situation. According to the mainstream view in Western media, Iran is now a "giant with clay feet," filled with "doublethink" similar to the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. It is claimed that the public (especially residents of Tehran) only superficially comply with Islamic legal norms, respect the spiritual leader, and follow his edicts, while secretly longing to return to Western lifestyles.

The basis for this assessment is the regular street protests occurring in Tehran - caused by radical Shiite militants' extreme behavior in public places (especially against women), and using refugees' and immigrants' statements as "intelligence" - these people often describe everything in revolutionary terms to maintain their importance. Thus, it is concluded that the "mullah regime" is merely nominal; as long as it is slightly pushed (such as destroying the leadership), the regime will collapse, and the war will end.

In terms of "ending the war," this means Israel's long-range victory in the "rocket quantity competition"; more broadly, it means the termination of Iran's nuclear program under conditions where all parties except Iran benefit.

Another assessment suggests that Iran's social situation is more stable, primarily due to the public's consensus on the secular roots and nature of its conflict with Israel and the West.

Perhaps some social groups (especially young people in big cities) do not fully identify with the religious elements in Iran's government, but even so, they view this confrontation as the inevitable result of "national games," rather than "a burden imposed by the mullahs." In this context, Israel and the United States' goals are not just targeting Shiite religious traditions or Iran's national system but directly challenging Persia's independent status.

In this context, assassinating the elderly Iranian spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, could become a unifying factor for the Iranian public. Moreover, the new spiritual leader of Iran may not be a more "friendly" figure towards Israel and the West.

By the way, according to Western sources, the White House in the U.S. also expressed concern about this. A senior U.S. government official said that Khamenei is an "Ayatollah known to Israel," while his replacement might be someone completely unknown to Israel.

Moreover, Ali Khamenei is a "Sayyid" (a direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad). Over centuries, the Sayyid group has grown to tens of thousands, yet they still form a special class, considered sacred, traditionally playing the role of interpreters of Islamic doctrine.

It is difficult to explain this identity using traditional European or Russian terminology: in Shiism, assassinating a Sayyid wearing a black turban is akin to assassinating an Orthodox patriarch (and this patriarch has blood ties with the Vatican family), only done by infidels or atheists. It is worth noting that Khamenei survived two assassination attempts in the 1980s, both planned by Iran's Trotskyist left-wing organizations - ideological atheists.

In other words, the benefits Israel would gain from assassinating Ali Khamenei are extremely unclear. Netanyahu's remarks are either a misjudgment of intelligence or overly radical statements during heated battles. However, another aspect deserves attention: Tel Aviv's double standards and its belief in possible actions.

Mainstream global media almost entirely ignored Netanyahu's remarks.

The impression is that for the Western camp, "it is necessary" to assassinate the spiritual leader of another country is routine and does not require special attention. But in fact, when the Israeli prime minister openly promotes a political assassination plan - Netanyahu had previously defined the conflict as a "struggle between good and evil," dehumanized Iran and Iranians, and emphasized that Israel's national interests outweigh everything else - such actions are just another step on the chessboard for Israel. Tel Aviv indeed considers this possible, acceptable, and permitted, and firmly believes that the so-called international community will neither condemn nor question this move.

Except for Israel, no country in the world dares to mention such plans calmly in foreign media interviews. For example, if Russian officials mentioned the possible removal of the head of the Kyiv regime (who has usurped the Ukrainian presidency for over a year), the Western media would cause an uproar beyond imagination.

One set of standards applies to "ourselves," while another set applies to those excluded from "ourselves" by the West for specific reasons. In this context, the entire international order and the "traditional" diplomatic system appear fragmented. Of course, Israel dares to make such statements because it is backed by American military power, and without Washington's direct approval, Israel would not dare take this step - and there is clearly no such tacit approval at present.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7517609155876733503/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Top/Downvote" button below.